Report 1826
Report #1826 Skillset: Skill: Forced-Actions Org: Celest Status: Rejected Oct 2017 Furies' Decision: Not at this time Problem: Removing worn items is currently an allowed forced action (e.g., via pooka). This allows players to effectively remove many buffs, including artifacts and armour, as well as your dignity. While worn items have the potential to be cursed on you, this is not a great solution (inconvenient, can't remove buffs/maluses like movement resistance), and in my opinion, this is not a necessary use of this skill. 7 R: 7 Solution #1: Forced actions cannot remove worn artifacts. 7 R: 5 Solution #2: Forced actions cannot remove any worn items. 8 R: 5 Solution #3: Also disallow forced WEAR. Player Comments: ---on 10/9 @ 02:58 writes: Supported. ---on 10/9 @ 03:01 writes: Absolutely all of these, please ---on 10/9 @ 03:10 writes: I don't see this as being a significant problem-- while we have addressed a number of force commands, mostly they are around things that mechanically can't be countered (such as cannibalizing away all your mana for an instance toadcurse, for example). However, discussion does show interest in looking into this, so my alternate solution 4 would be to instead go with an adjustment to Fist Sigils. An item with a Fist sigil attached to it cannot be forced to be removed. This gives the desired effect while also pinning it onto a tradeskill. Artifacts with a fist sigil would obviously never lose the fist sigil (since they never decay), but it doesn't wipe the option entirely across the board. I will note that this doesn't actually impact the "wear"ing end of things at all, though. If there's a desire to actually disable that as well, then a flat removal of both wear and remove domination is probably the only option. ---on 10/9 @ 03:11 writes: In summary: Solution 1 would be better as the Fist Sigil idea, then Solutions 2 & 3 should be combined. Determine which way we want to go with it. Tweaking artifacts, or adjust the system in general to flatly account for people dressing & undressing you. ---on 10/9 @ 03:17 writes: There is no point in creating a solution that essentially inconveniences players having to maintain fist sigils on their clothing, when you can just remove the source of the problem. There is no rationale why the applicable classes should be able to do this. ---on 10/9 @ 03:20 sets as pending ---on 10/9 @ 03:26 writes: Artifacts require no "maintenance" of fist sigils, because artifacts do not decay. That isn't a problem at all. If you rune your clothing, the same thing applies, in fact. Hence my pointing out a disconnect between your two sets of solutions. Solution 1 addresses only artifacts, and if we're going to just do that, then make it work via fist sigils. Use the in-game economy we've got. Solutions 2 and 3 are reworking the system to address a broader goal (including clothing-in-general), and should basically be treated as the same solution imo. If you're going to remove wearing things, then you have to remove removing as well, and there's not really a good mechanical system aside from just outright removing it from the Force system to accomplish that. ---on 10/9 @ 03:31 writes: Another viable option would be to just delete Solution 1 entirely and keep 2 and 3, which excises the disconnect (and focuses your report entirely around the clothing system as it exists, instead of having an artifact cutout which doesn't address where you seem to be going with it based on Sols 2 & 3). ---on 10/9 @ 03:51 writes: One last thought (having logged off and then deciding I wanted to be more clear on this): The argument that force commands can strip artifact buffs and effects is a problem is not a compelling one to me. I feel that is exactly what force commands are meant to do (one of the things, anyways), hence my distaste for solution 1 (and the bulk of the problem statement as it currently exists). However, in the discussion the broader concern of people being able to force you into (or out of) clothing sets in general was brought up and I find this to be a much more compelling argument for consideration, which is why I'm willing to support sols 2 and 3. Making a change for artifacts, and artifacts alone, does nothing for this-- it is intended only to keep mechanical advantages without having any counter to them at all. ---on 10/9 @ 18:06 writes: You shouldn't be able to negate the effects of an artifact (i.e., buffs that are worth hundreds of credits) with a forced action. In my case, I was given alcohol withdrawal just because I unknowingly removed the Charm of Clangoru mid-combat, resulting in a -5/-10 debuff to all of my vitals. There is no protection against this, and there is no sensible way to trigger putting all of your removed items back on. ---on 10/9 @ 18:09 writes: If anyone actually supports Xenthos' fist sigil proposal, then I'll amend the solutions, but everyone else in the conversation (including verbal confirmations outside of the current report comments) favours removing this capacity from forced actions altogether. Supposedly if this gets wide support, the report will just be implemented, so please comment either way so we can perhaps use this slot for something else. ---on 10/9 @ 18:10 writes: I'm fine with it being removed, its trivial to counter with gmcp and I'm generally against anything that increases the scripting buyin randomly. ---on 10/9 @ 19:43 writes: Not really fond of either solution though I certainly see why this is annoying. Removing items can be a valid tactic (not the best examples but whatever: dreamweaver druid inducing removal of cleanse enchantment to help stick sap/pookaing removal of cement socks to reduce rooting) and proposed solutions would give complete immunity to attempts. Instead why not just make Clangoru charm (since this is the thing Kaimanahi was originally discussing over Envoys channel anyway) impossible to remove unless masochistic or have the charm work worn and unworn. ---on 10/9 @ 21:05 writes: @Crek: And what happens the next time someone finds a way to abuse forced artifact removal to get a big advantage? We make another report to add that to the list of exceptions? Just make it all artifacts. ---on 10/9 @ 21:33 writes: As I said, I'm against the change just addressing the removal of artifacts by fiat. Either the problem is people being able to interfere with your dignity (via dressing / undressing / cursed items etc), or the issue is just someone using mechanics to counter other mechanics (which is good gameplay). I see absolutely no problem with someone being able to undo credit-buffs because they're not -destroying- your artifact, just temporarily disabling it (and you have the ability to turn it back on immediately, too). The clangorum charm is essentially an odd-one-out in that it counters a debuff on yourself, so removing it applies that debuff-- other artifacts are self-buffs and removing them just puts you back on a status-quo level as everyone else who does not own the artifact in the first place. Please consider: Is this report trying to address artifact removal, or the clothing dignity and self-control issue? If the latter, I don't see the point of solution 1 at all. If the former, what are the other solutions doing in the report? I really do consider these to be two entirely separate problem / solution sets and one of them (as I stated earlier) I actually do have a great deal of sympathy for once it was brought up in the discussion... but I'd really like to see this report actually pick one and go with it. (Also on a purely meta level I'm not entirely sure why you don't just go "Okay, yes, this report is about removing clothing, let's adjust it to that and make Xenthos shut up and unconditionally support it" :p) ---on 10/9 @ 23:11 writes: I am in agreement to all three solutions suggested ---on 10/10 @ 10:24 writes: I don't really feel either way for forced commands on artifacts/armor. I honestly think using forcedcommands in this manner is good strategy, and it is very easily countered with some coding, but I can see how using forced commands on certain artifacts can cause a problem (like with the drinking arti mentioned previously.) I kind of side with Xenthos on this. First, I don't really feel all the solutions presented really solve the problem statement given. Solution 1 just gives another buff to investing in artis and doesn't cover aspects in the problem statement (armor, buffs in the form of enchants, etc). Sol 2 probably covers most bases, and if I had to choose one, that would likely be it. Sol 3 is just an addition that isn't even addressed in the problem statement (as that covers forced removal only), so I'm not even sure why you want me to support removing forced wear. In the end, I don't really think this is something that needs to be changed as it removes a valid strategy from forcedcommands, but if I had to choose an option, it would be sol2 out of the given solutions (forced actions cannot remove any worn items.) ---on 10/10 @ 18:28 writes: On review I'm basically indifferent to this going through or not. I'd be happy either way if it stays or goes. If forced removal/wearing is or isn't wanted by the admin either works for me. I'll just let the admin pick. I was under the impression that this would be a hard thing to trigger at first and I'm not that good with coding but Tarken threw together a simple trigger for me in a few ticks that counters any removal by rewearing the specific item removed(was apparently much easier to do than I thought). So practically folks can counter this easily so forcing unwear becomes a wasted command on anyone prepared for it. If we want to remove this trigger requirement to make combat easier for newbies to get into though that seems like a logical reason for me to support removal of forced unwearing. On the other side I do see the argument Anelissa and Xenthos are putting forwards as well in terms have having additional tactics and opportunities. So I've said my piece beyond that I'm just going to abstain on the vote as either way works for me and I can see benefits to both sides of this. ---on 10/12 @ 19:39 writes: I don't see this as needed. You can easily code to rewear items and using forced commands to get around artifacts seems to me a valid tactic. As pointed out, you are not losing the artifact, just the benefit for a short time, shorter if you take the 2 minutes to make a trigger. ---on 10/18 @ 21:53 writes: Danquik: Reducing mandatory system overhead is good for the game, because it lowers the entry bar to combat. ---on 10/18 @ 23:07 writes: If's really so easy to code around then I don't really understand the argument against this change. ---on 10/21 @ 01:27 writes: Solution 2 only- concur with Tarken's assessment ---on 10/21 @ 04:10 writes: I am supporting all 3 solutions. I don't find forced unwearing to be particularly inventive or desirable game play, and it is compounded by the ubiquity of artifact runes (one item might be itself an artifact and also have 10 artifacts attached to it). I also buy the 'no reason to increase coding overhead unnecessarily' argument. ---on 10/28 @ 01:56 writes: @Moi reducing overhead is good. Babysitting in every aspect of the game is not. @Faelaron just because something is trivial to code does not mean someone does it, nor does it automatically mean that something should be removed because it can be coded against. It is still a valid tactic to sue.